Hwy 99 Fraser River Tunnel (George Massey Replacement) | Proposed

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by cornholio

I am curious what will happen after this project. I fully expect a highway finally being built from South Surrey via Langley to the #1 (as planned for decades now). I expect this project to come right after this one in the 20's. It will fully connect our ports, airport and main industrial bases seamlessly to both the US and rest of Canada/BC. Also keep in mind the largest new industrial zone is located at Campbell heights.

Also highway 10 improvements were always temporary.

But doesn't the SFPR kind of make that highway pointless? (at least for the time being).

Originally Posted by Genauso

The Toigos will be building a casino just to the east of it, I don't know the current status.

The bridge is big because the ALR, in Richmond and Delta, will be developed just like Provincial land in Coquitlam was. Hopefully the Canada Line is extended straight to the ferry terminal in Tsawassen as part of the same round of development.

Actually, that makes me wonder about a high speed passenger ferry route to Seattle. I'd love a high speed rail route, but that's not happening without a cheaper way to build underground or elevated.

A high speed passenger Ferry isn't that fast. The fastest has the same speed of a car at 100km/hr down I-5.


I would need a source for the development of provincial land in Coquitlam.

And in any case, regarding that ALR redevelopment- it would likely be industrial (it's right next to a major port, and you can drop freight onto cargo ships- it's a industrialist's wet dream!). That's assuming it happens.

They can't get the Salmon River Highlands out of the ALR, an area that's not agricultural in all but name.

There's also a huge chunk of ALR in Maple Ridge that literally has 0 agricultural tenants.

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Saw a post on facebook from a news outlet regarding the bridge getting environmental approval or something. In the comments were a couple of people complaining about the renderings lacking 2 lanes reserved for light rail. I wanted to educate them on the fact that light rail would suck and to just have bus lanes instead. I resisted.

You might as well reserve two for commuter and freight Rail. Is it capable of that kind of load-bearing?

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Fair enough. Here's Part 2.

I agree with you that the GMB needs to be future-proofed for high levels of traffic, especially as BC becomes more interconnected with Washington and Oregon... and seeing as rapid transit isn't coming to Delta any time within the next twenty years.

What if commuter Rail comes to Delta?

[Metro-One]

The ALR is not going anywhere, seriously there are some alarmists on here who believe that, but it is not to worry about.

If any ALR is taken out it won't be because of this highway, it will be from the cities themselves lobbying to develop orphaned plots near their urban areas. (or if another native deal is done).

The 99 has already existed along this corridor for decades, and so far the ALR along it has not been lost. The SFPR has been opened for a couple years now, so far no ALR being re-zoned.

Aslo, some ALR areas are not currently being farmed because good farmland actually needs cycles of no activity to keep it fertile.

[Marshal]

The ALR legislation is stronger than most people think, though I have no idea why anyone thinks its fragile. The changes fredinno referred to aren't going to happen in the next 50 years if ever. And don't be fooled by what you think a piece of ALR land is good for, or being used/not used for. I have worked on projects on ALR land: the restrictions are tight, and they have a zillion defined agricultural uses/potential uses - some of which would surprise you. If you see acres of gravel piles, don't assume that will become industrial port land . . . ever.

[dleung]

This is so overbuilt for its purpose. What's the flyover from steveston to southbound hwy 99 for? Is the theater and ice rink such a big destination?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The ALR is not going anywhere, seriously there are some alarmists on here who believe that, but it is not to worry about.

If any ALR is taken out it won't be because of this highway, it will be from the cities themselves lobbying to develop orphaned plots near their urban areas. (or if another native deal is done).

The 99 has already existed along this corridor for decades, and so far the ALR along it has not been lost. The SFPR has been opened for a couple years now, so far no ALR being re-zoned.

Aslo, some ALR areas are not currently being farmed because good farmland actually needs cycles of no activity to keep it fertile.

Everything you say is true, however this massive bridge is way overbuilt, unless you consider large portions of the ALR being redeveloped. This is a huge catalyst to push for development on the south side of the GMB.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

I would argue that the Port Mann Bridge (and hell, the Golden Ears Bridge too) is an excellent example of why we don't need another 10-lane $4b tolled bridge. The traffic volumes on the PMB are nowhere near what they were predicting. It continues to bleed money. It was built for largely the same reasons that they're using to justify a 10-lane GMT replacement, and look how it's turning out. Do we need another bridge to lose $100m a year (or even more, because the traffic levels won't be as high as the PMB's levels) or should we actually learn from our mistakes and not go as crazy as we did for the PMB?

What makes the GMT replacement any different from the PMB?

So you're saying you're upset because the new Port Mann isn't chocked in 13 hr plus traffic like the old one. You're upset because you're driving across a modern bridge that has less traffic and it's more spread out evenly over the lanes.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[Genauso]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

A good point is made here the bridge certainly has not met traffic expectations so far, imo the solution is a more modest GMB and tolls on all bridges at a lower rate. Perhaps with slight adjustments so that you pay a premium for more express routes.

I think it would be sensible to plan for a smaller bridge, and reduce the risk of spending money long before it can be useful.

There is space for 2 bridges to be accommodated without regrettable traffic flows, and the savings on interest until the 2nd bridge was built would counter the cost of building two separate projects.

I think the reason for building a mega-bridge when we don't know whether it would prove too small or too big, is how the fees and profits are calculated for a P3 project. The bigger, the better; in that respect, the Port Mann bridge was a great success for everyone but the taxpayer.

[officedweller]

The "problem" with building a new bridge in pahses, is that the 2nd phase may never get built due to politics.

i.e. If the Potrt Mann had been twinned, the older span would still come up for renewal/replacement in XX years, at which point you are bvack to having one bridge.

Similarly, if the tunnel were twinned and the older one upgraded, the older one would still need further repair or replacement down the road during which you'd be back down to one tunnel during that period.

At least with a fully new span, there's some certainty that the facility will be there for a defined period.

Originally Posted by dleung

This is so overbuilt for its purpose. What's the flyover from steveston to southbound hwy 99 for? Is the theater and ice rink such a big destination?

I think you're reading one of the photos incorrectly. Maybe the Hwy 17A interchange ramp from Ladner to northbound 99?

[madog222]

Originally Posted by dleung

This is so overbuilt for its purpose. What's the flyover from steveston to southbound hwy 99 for? Is the theater and ice rink such a big destination?

Singling out that one element, sure it is overbuilt. But with this interchange design there is no other option that would not drastically reduce capacity of other flows.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by dleung

This is so overbuilt for its purpose. What's the flyover from steveston to southbound hwy 99 for? Is the theater and ice rink such a big destination?

clearly you haven't been there on weekends. many times i have been stuck on that 1 lane road, going westbound. it will back up all the way from No. 5 road to Palmberg Rd. the 1 lane over pass is a pain in the ass. you also need to remember there is a development out there with housing. i am sure it will grow in the future. plus, there is a large car depot there where ships and trains will go. without that interchange being free-flowing, other directions would get backed up and it would be a pain in the ass. remember, this is designed to last 100 years.

[urbancanadian]

Originally Posted by dleung

This is so overbuilt for its purpose. What's the flyover from steveston to southbound hwy 99 for? Is the theater and ice rink such a big destination?

The flyover is to keep the design compact to ensure as much ALR is preserved as possible.

The industrial area is expanding and so I suspect a higher-capacity eastern approach to the interchange will allow for better connectivity to the area. It could also save having to build the planned Blundell Road interchange, which was intended to serve industrial traffic to the east.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by dleung

This is so overbuilt for its purpose. What's the flyover from steveston to southbound hwy 99 for? Is the theater and ice rink such a big destination?

You could not be more wrong with this statement.

[Genauso]

Originally Posted by officedweller

The "problem" with building a new bridge in pahses, is that the 2nd phase may never get built due to politics.

True, I'm speaking as a taxpayer who sees the chance for significant miscalculation. I'd rather have a plan for the next 50 years of expected growth with infrastructure upgrades grouped to match, and then bring forward or delay stages of the plan as warranted.

The current system works very well for a few, and a handful of big land owners who orchestrate our limited media into chastising NIMBY's, or preserving heritage as it suits them on a given project they've already made a political backroom deal for. Constant outrage on TV, constant smiles for the puppet masters.

NIMBY imo is a myth, and the same applies to the problem where one region doesn't want to pay for transportation improvements in another. Everyone just wants to be heard and to get a fair deal.

The number of people that automatically say yes/no based on ideology is very very small.

The reason why NIMBYers are prominent in our imagination is because our media only has time for clickbait stories designed by the PR firm serving them up to inspire a simple instinctive response.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[Genauso]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Idealistic but, NIMBY's are no myth

I have a friend who works PR for one of the larger developers in Vancouver. Thought he was doing me a favor by asking if I would set up some social media bots where the purpose was to recruit and coach real people on what to say by misleading them.

It's not the common citizen who organizes a segment on the TV news, it's usually a professional who wants to tell a story that inspires a desired reaction.


You did quote my exact words, but I was saying NIMBY-like stereotypes are fiction as we know them. I said those who ideologically demand one outcome are very very few.

NIMBY is a myth because of how the news media chooses to tell the story. The story told doesn't reflect reality, which doesn't mean lying but does mean framing/focusing/amplifying/muting the facts.

Real estate is the biggest industry in the province of BC. I don't think Jane Smith with a single vote every four years is dictating to politicians and the ad-supported media. So, if that's what you believe, I'm telling you it's a myth. Supporting or undermining actual NIMBYs are both profitable to a big developer, depending on the context. If one development gets stalled, there's probably a bigger interest profiting.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by dleung

This is so overbuilt for its purpose. What's the flyover from steveston to southbound hwy 99 for? Is the theater and ice rink such a big destination?

Do you seriously want it overbuilt? Do you realize how bad it is to build for the capacity needed the very fucking day/hour/second it's planned? Look at the 0.000000000000000001-assed Canada Line. Toy trains with toy stations with single tracked termini at Richmond and YVR, no room to extend it because some dickheads who think it never needs to be extended said so. Who knows what would happen in the future. Maybe some huge developments would cause an increase in traffic.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The ALR is not going anywhere, seriously there are some alarmists on here who believe that, but it is not to worry about.

If any ALR is taken out it won't be because of this highway, it will be from the cities themselves lobbying to develop orphaned plots near their urban areas. (or if another native deal is done).

The 99 has already existed along this corridor for decades, and so far the ALR along it has not been lost. The SFPR has been opened for a couple years now, so far no ALR being re-zoned.

Aslo, some ALR areas are not currently being farmed because good farmland actually needs cycles of no activity to keep it fertile.

Some parts probably are. The Salmon River Highlands plots are so Balkanized, they might as well BE suburban designation- and Langley has been pushing for it to be removed from the ALR for decades. One small push of development $$$ coming in, and it's going to be kicked.

Keep in mind the rest of the Tswassen Boundary Bay Farm was recently removed from the ALR, and it's in general been slowly shrinking in the Fraser Valley. I don't think the ALR near the Bridge (or Deltaport) will be removed until we build out out existing industrial lands... Plus, there are other places near the Fraser that can support industrial land without tearing up the high-productivity, industrial farms in Delta and the Serpentine Valley.



BTW, the area I was referring to in Maple Ridge is on the top right hand area on this map, surrounded in Red. If I was doing an eyeball calculation, it would be 10% active farming and 90% empty. And most of that "active farming" is probably a few family farms.

Granted, it's not totally empty, as there are quite a few country estates (a viable usage for ALR land- something I know first hand that people take advantage of) but there are also lots of empty (treed) lots, and even a bunch of suburban lots. (!)

Looks like Langley isn't the only municipality notorious for constantly trying to bend the rules...


https://metrovanwatch.wordpress.com/2011...d-closer-to-urbanization-sets-precedent/

Langley in particular has a bad habit of subdividing lots to slowly turn them into suburban areas and pressure them to be removed from the ALR. Not that I blame them. Langley is notorious for minisule farm lot sizes that were probably made back before we had mechanized equipment around the Valley.

Originally Posted by Marshal

The ALR legislation is stronger than most people think, though I have no idea why anyone thinks its fragile. The changes fredinno referred to aren't going to happen in the next 50 years if ever. And don't be fooled by what you think a piece of ALR land is good for, or being used/not used for. I have worked on projects on ALR land: the restrictions are tight, and they have a zillion defined agricultural uses/potential uses - some of which would surprise you. If you see acres of gravel piles, don't assume that will become industrial port land . . . ever.

People think it's fragile because it's happened MANY times before. http://www.langleytimes.com/opinion/11251641.html?mobile=true

http://www.bradnerbarker.com/news/alc-denys-the-west-abbotsford-alr-exclusion

http://www.vancouversun.com/Delta+counci...Tsawwassen+Southlands/9143786/story.html

This proposal was denied, but it was in Abbosford development planning maps as 'development area', and the nearby Glouchester Industrial Park was once ALR.

Terra Nova was also lost from the ALR- though a good portion of it became parkland.


Now you understand why people are paranoid?

Originally Posted by Genauso

I think it would be sensible to plan for a smaller bridge, and reduce the risk of spending money long before it can be useful.

There is space for 2 bridges to be accommodated without regrettable traffic flows, and the savings on interest until the 2nd bridge was built would counter the cost of building two separate projects.

I think the reason for building a mega-bridge when we don't know whether it would prove too small or too big, is how the fees and profits are calculated for a P3 project. The bigger, the better; in that respect, the Port Mann bridge was a great success for everyone but the taxpayer.

They should keep it at 8 lanes- especially since Alex Fraser will take a lot of the traffic...

At least with Port Mann, there was little chance Pautello 2.0 was going to exceed 6 lanes (and it's being built initially to 4.), and Port Mann was the most congested Bridge in Canada. Not only that, but there was highway space to expand Trans-Canada- all the way up to the elevated segment in Vancouver (which that, and Cassiar Tunnel, would eventually become a bottleneck once the North Van Hwy 1 section, and then the 2nd Narrows is upgraded.


However, we will never get an expressway into the Heart of Vancouver, ever, nor a 3rd crossing at Downtown.

It was killed and buried deep in the 60s- and even if we revived it and passed it through Stanley Park instead, or tunneled it (new skycrapers since the original proposals prevent a bridge), the sheer public outrage would destroy it from day one.

Traffic will go directly into Vancouver Streets- Granville and Knight St (and respective bridges) will become major bottlenecks.

The new bridge would also funnel traffic into congested Bridgeport Rd.



Even if we built a new Boundary Rd Bridge, and widened the aging Queeensbrough, Oak St. and Knight St. Bridges (which are really way too narrow- even no new lanes would be a massive plus if it was built to current standards), it wouldn't fix the fundamental issue of Vancouver Streets being unable to handle the extra traffic.

The traffic Bottleneck would simply move from George Massey to Bridgeport Rd. and Vancouver.

And a Boundary Rd. Bridge would connect most with Alex Fraser the most, not George Massey.

A Main St. Bridge may help.



Also, Bridgeport Rd. needs to be massively upgraded. Either make a tunneled connection with YVR via Hwy 91 under Richmond, or make a new viaduct at Bridgeport Rd...